CMSF Marines review up at IGN

[panzermartin]

At certain angles graphics almost look photorealistic like those screenshots above. The problem is when grass doodads dont get shaded, trees distort, elevations of terrain become invisible when light is direct etc.

For instance check this screen:

CMSF maps though give you complete freedom of POVs which is a huge plus compared to the restricted camera in fancy RTS with small maps and 100m visibility.

With CMx2 WW2 , normandy scenery would be an instant boost to graphical aesthetics simply because of the colors and the less lego like buildings. Realistic water will be another thing to enhance visuals.

Generally I think its the quality and the pallete of the textures that will make it look beautiful, not the extra FX and polygons. I will repeat that CMBO looked absolutely stunning with Magua's sublime and finely colored textures on the simple 3d models. Just hope Dan and co will get those greens right. Its a damn tricky color!

[hoolaman]

I agree. This is up to each designer though. I guess we could have the best of both worlds if the designer included some clear summary. I usually forget that myself when making my own scenarios! I get so absorbed by the story and all that I forget to see it from the players perspective sometimes.

As for the flags and stuff, I know you said you don´t mean to came back to real flags but something to have the same functionality. I´m not sure what would be the best solution for that though.

-

I guess the fixed format scenario briefing headings don't really lend to discussing victory points, but it would be nice to be able to translate "Take that building" into "that building is worth 100 points".

What I mean with the flags is more about the concept of knowing that a certain objective is worth a certain value to both sides. Like a $100 bill on the map, I know if I take it its mine and if you take it its yours. At the moment the US objectives are in US dollars and the syrian objectives are in Syrian Pounds if you understand my tortured analogy.

[Other Means]

I guess the fixed format scenario briefing headings don't really lend to discussing victory points, but it would be nice to be able to translate "Take that building" into "that building is worth 100 points".

That's a good point. In CM1 I used to make a mental calculation thinking "I'll take that group of 3 large flags and with a positive casualty ratio I'll get the game.".

Currently you can't do that. What you need to achieve and what you can sacrifice to do so is unstated.

I think the old points system QBs helped in this. You knew what certain tanks were worth and how much infantry was worth committing to gain an objective.

So maybe if something could be introduced that would allow you to gauge that it would bring some clarity to the scoring.

[Secondbrooks]

But does CMSF lose some of it's assymmetric style if it is forced to display too much info?

I really can't tell. My mind can't see how things would turn out to be.

Right now briefing might, or might not, tell to player what are main and what are secondary objectives. I liked how for example in "battle of pooh" (or what ever was it's name) briefing told to player that he needs to have two particular objectives under his control to win. But i don't see it relevant for some missions... Forexample searching buildings for something.

[c3k]

Gents,

Regarding the objective discussion, well said! That is part of the issue I keep trying to get my head around when I play a scenario: what am I supposed to do with that objective (take, touch, destroy?) and, how much is it weighted towards victory?

I can see in a campaign where your units have an intrinsic value which is not needed for victory conditions. For example, I shouldn't lose points for 90% casualties in the first battle of a campaign because I will assuredly lose the next several battles. (Unless I have an endless pipeline of troops, in which case casualties are even more unimportant.)

I can see an argument for having the objective information withheld from the player. I'd like to have the designer get the option of whether the player sees the value of an objective. Hence, my call for a toggle which would allow on-screen descriptors of the objective. If the designer deliberately withholds information, the toggle would come up blank or "classified" or some other place holder.

Ken

[c3k]

Graphics:

Ali-Baba; your screenshot shows one of the graphical problems with CMSF. The concentric rings of nearly flat objects break the immersion. A related issue is the ring of "level of detail" which requires flying across the terrain repeatedly to see what the terrain is like.

Paper Tiger; your screenshots show the graphical strength of CMSF. Combining the detailed ballistics and simulations with visuals like that is a fantastice combination.

Regards,

Ken

[Bigduke6]

Yeah, but who plays the game with the view on ground level and with most of your computer screen filled up by a vehicle or two?

Most of us I am guess spend most of the game "zoomed out", as that's where you have to be to watch the action when it is running, and to do movement unless you only plot about 10 meters ahead at time. And at distance, the terrain becomes sort of dull and the incredibly-detailed soldiers and vehicles become not much to look at. And that's what you see during most of the play, as the point to the game is to play, not to get down on ground level and be impressed with the pixel count that went into a Stryker wheel.

CM1 had what I think is a terrific compromise; it allowed you to scale up the size of the units out of proportion to the terrain, so even when your view was way over the battlefield you could look at your guys and tanks in some detail. This replicated table-top wargaming extremely well, and I think is a factor in what made CM1 so revolutionary. It was the first computer wargame, that really was by most standards a better wargame than a tabletop wargame, and part of the enjoyment of tabletop wargaming is the cool little figures.

CM2 steps away from that, everything is proportional, we can't upsize out soldiers and vehicles, if we want to ogle them we have to get down at a detail level that makes the game unplayable. And since the point is playing the game, that visual benefit is lost - even though technically the amount of memory dedicated to unit visuals is factors more in CM2 than in CM1.

Can't recommend any clever solutions. Maybe make a option so that you get up the detail on units and terrain at the higher altitude viewing levels, if your machine has the power to drive it.

[Other Means]

Yeah, but who plays the game with the view on ground level and with most of your computer screen filled up by a vehicle or two?

Most of us I am guess spend most of the game "zoomed out", as that's where you have to be to watch the action when it is running, and to do movement unless you only plot about 10 meters ahead at time. And at distance, the terrain becomes sort of dull and the incredibly-detailed soldiers and vehicles become not much to look at. And that's what you see during most of the play, as the point to the game is to play, not to get down on ground level and be impressed with the pixel count that went into a Stryker wheel.

CM1 had what I think is a terrific compromise; it allowed you to scale up the size of the units out of proportion to the terrain, so even when your view was way over the battlefield you could look at your guys and tanks in some detail. This replicated table-top wargaming extremely well, and I think is a factor in what made CM1 so revolutionary. It was the first computer wargame, that really was by most standards a better wargame than a tabletop wargame, and part of the enjoyment of tabletop wargaming is the cool little figures.

CM2 steps away from that, everything is proportional, we can't upsize out soldiers and vehicles, if we want to ogle them we have to get down at a detail level that makes the game unplayable. And since the point is playing the game, that visual benefit is lost - even though technically the amount of memory dedicated to unit visuals is factors more in CM2 than in CM1.

Can't recommend any clever solutions. Maybe make a option so that you get up the detail on units and terrain at the higher altitude viewing levels, if your machine has the power to drive it.

Dude...dude. You know what this talk does to me. This is the major point that gets in the way of enjoying CM2. If you can't see the units react to your tactics then you can't know how you're doing and so the cycle of plan->implement->observe is hindered.

And you know I'm legally obliged to post this link.

[Webwing]

Yeah, but who plays the game with the view on ground level and with most of your computer screen filled up by a vehicle or two?

I think it depends on style of play. I play mostly RT. I pause and zoom out to have an overview of the battlefield. Then I zoom in to go to different groups, giving orders for them in turn. Zoom out and un-pause. If there is a lot going on on different locations it is better to be high above. But I then pause and move to different areas that need attention and stay with this close view to see how things develop.

So I do see things up close and I do see things from above.

But I guess yes, you could play the whole game from far above and just see little icons on the map.

-

[Other Means]

I think it depends on style of play. I play mostly RT. I pause and zoom out to have an overview of the battlefield. Then I zoom in to go to different groups, giving orders for them in turn. Zoom out and un-pause. If there is a lot going on on different locations it is better to be high above. But I then pause and move to different areas that need attention and stay with this close view to see how things develop.

So I do see things up close and I do see things from above.

But I guess yes, you could play the whole game from far above and just see little icons on the map.

-

If you play at level 3/4/5 like I do, then units 100m away give you very little tactical information. You get no gestalt when you're playing, you need to zoom in on each group to see what's going on. That's just needless hard work.

[c3k]

Other Means,

What an excellent thread you linked to! It covers some critical ground.

I think the OP needs some sort of award. Please find him and bestow the same.

Regards,

Ken

[Other Means]

Yeah I forget who that is. Not important I guess.

[Battlefront.com]

Getting back to a couple of pages ago from Webwing:

When CMBO come out it was mostly compared to other wargames and the graphics were praised since most wargames were either hexbased or the 3d was very poor.

Now CM:SF is being compared to the latest RTS and Shooters!

I think the problem with Lurker765's selective quoted reviews shows this quite clearly. When CMx1 games were reviewed by guys who were into/used to wargames we generally got excellent reviews EVEN on the graphics. Same with our customers. But when the reviewers and gamers were more mainstream we got criticism that ranged from mild to score slaughtering. And yeah, I remember this VERY WELL because it was so infuriating to get compared to an indoor shooter like Quake or a sprite based game like Warcraft 2. And yeah, we were compared to them all the time by non-wargamers.

By the time CMAK came around even the guys that were expecting more from the game, graphically, than it offered. This was NOT just because the environment since it had all the temperate terrain of CMBB as well as the desert setting. Nope, we got hit more frequently because a) there were a lot less publications out there with "relevant" reviewers and everybody expected to see release over release improvements. CMAK was, obviously, the same graphics engine and therefore improvement other than dust was just not enough.

So I'm not the one with the selective memory

The criticism of CMx1's graphics were so strong that we almost didn't make CMAK because of that alone. I'm serious. What do you think we did? Make up a bunch of imaginary criticism to short change our own investment in the CMx1 game engine? That's stupid beyond belief and therefore is certainly not what we did. Therefore, the criticism were there and were real at the time. If you don't believe this, then please ask yourself... how much more critical of CMx2 would reviewers and gamers alike be of CM:SF if its graphics were not as good as they are? More or less? If you say "less" then once again I must point out that I'm not the one that's using selective reasoning

Now, it is true that we still have room for improvement. Definitely some views of CM's environment are rougher than others. The way I play, which is high up but more at a 3/4 view instead of overhead, the game still looks vastly superior to CMx1. But more than that, the terrain detail means a much richer game experience even if I'm not down at ground level oogling over a specific unit.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

While I do agree that CMx2 needs better feedback in some ways, we will never, ever, in a billion years go back to a more "table top wargame" environment like CMx1. For better or worse we've moved beyond abstract graphical environments and simplified game mechanics. We will never return to them, even if the game engine could handle being more abstract (which it can't, on purpose).

I also have had many debates with Other Means about how much less information CMx2 has when compared to CMx1. Not much, really. Much of the differences between the two game systems are only relevant if someone insists that they be. Which means that the primary difference is not so much about what the game does but individual play style. We'll always have a pretty big gap between what options we can provide to people and how many options people want so that they can play the game exactly the way they want to. There are only so many hours in the day to design and codes stuff.

That being said, CMx2 will have many improvements as we go along that will appeal to people like Other Means. 30 meter tall soldiers? Never, but other stuff for sure.

Steve

[Lurker765]

I think the problem with Lurker765's selective quoted reviews shows this quite clearly. When CMx1 games were reviewed by guys who were into/used to wargames we generally got excellent reviews EVEN on the graphics. Same with our customers. But when the reviewers and gamers were more mainstream we got criticism that ranged from mild to score slaughtering. And yeah, I remember this VERY WELL because it was so infuriating to get compared to an indoor shooter like Quake or a sprite based game like Warcraft 2. And yeah, we were compared to them all the time by non-wargamers.

Steve

I did not selectively quote any reviews. I went to MetaCritic:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/combatmissionbarbarossa/

and grabbed the first couple reviews I could find about CMBB. I could have quoted:

"and counting in well-drawn graphics and outstanding sound" from Pregaming.com

or a more 'mainstream' review:

"Combat Mission is not the best looking tactical simulator out there with it’s rather odd looking characters but the grandeur of the environments are really something to behold." from GameZone.com

or

"Don't let the great sounds and graphics fool you into thinking that this is an arcade game, or simply an RTS dressed in WWII clothing." from GameSpy.com

etc.

CMx1 was loved by critics. I honestly don't know where these 'mainstream' reviews that you keep bringing up (without any links) are. Every place I have looked for reviews of CMBB has given it a higher score than CMSF and not one was "score slaughtering" on the graphics.

I don't understand where this bashing of your own game comes from? As far as I can tell you do have selective memory on this topic.

Therefore, the criticism were there and were real at the time. If you don't believe this, then please ask yourself... how much more critical of CMx2 would reviewers and gamers alike be of CM:SF if its graphics were not as good as they are?

I think this is a strawman argument. I haven't found ONE web site that slammed CMBB for it's graphics. Some thought they weren't stellar, but even those praised it for raising the bar in the niche it was in. Others praised it without any conditions.

CMAK is probably a different story, but then again that is always the case when a computer game doesn't update graphics much as years go by. Of course CMSF would have been slammed if you had not updated the graphics just as if Quake was released again in this environment everyone would scorn it. For the times however, CMBB graphics were better than CMSF is and I think the reviews have reflected that.

I think the "if I don't believe this" question should be more along the lines of "if I don't believe this I should be able to find one review that slams the graphics". Instead I find and link several that are of the opposite opinion and at worst lukewarm.

For me, I usually play at view levels 3-5 with occasional zooming in for replays to level 1-2. For these view levels on my system I actually prefer the graphics of CMx1. The buildings and terrain are better looking and I can see my supersized units better rather than just an icon that doesn't give me much status info. If I played at level 1-2 the graphics would matter more to me, but from the higher elevations the LOD becomes muddy and drab.

And I completely agree with Other Means on the lack of information at the higher elevations. I certainly miss the labels from CMx1 that let me know when my men were under fire, panicked, etc. And the targetting lines for all units showing, command lines, etc.

IMHO.

[Lurker765]

I also miss sound contacts, mis-IDing enemy units, placeable fortifications that have FOW, etc. It sounds like some of those things might eventually make it back in which would make me happy.

CMx1 struck a great balance between graphics and game play while it seems that the vast majority of development time on CM:SF went into graphics. Your question of:

would reviewers and gamers alike be of CM:SF if its graphics were not as good as they are? More or less? If you say "less" then once again I must point out that I'm not the one that's using selective reasoning

could be turned around to ask -- if so much dev time had not been expended into trying to get close to good graphics how much could the gameplay, mechanics, feedback, etc been improved.

Would reviewers and gamers alike think of CM:SF if the graphics were not as emphasized but instead the other issues were in the game instead? How many people wanted a right click menu? Kill lists? Quick battles? WEGO TCP? All the things that were in CMx1 that made commanding fun (for me) seemed to have not made it into the initial release of CM:SF and I only see years of development for mainly graphic improvements (that I don't really even notice much at the levels I play at, especially if in RT with no replay available).

There is a price for trying to keep up on the graphics front. You are apparently happy with that decision, and it is your call to make. Your question is not as lopsided as you made it appear though -- of course everyone would prefer Crysis style graphics (if their machines could run it). But the cost to get to that point means that gameplay topics get put on the back burner for years.

I loved CMx1 for it's game play along with good enough graphics. Maybe your new batch of customers prefer the graphics and can tolerate the lesser game play better than I can -- in which case BFC is on the right path and I move off into the curmudgeonly past.

[Other Means]

While I do agree that CMx2 needs better feedback in some ways, we will never, ever, in a billion years go back to a more "table top wargame" environment like CMx1. For better or worse we've moved beyond abstract graphical environments and simplified game mechanics. We will never return to them, even if the game engine could handle being more abstract (which it can't, on purpose).

I also have had many debates with Other Means about how much less information CMx2 has when compared to CMx1. Not much, really. Much of the differences between the two game systems are only relevant if someone insists that they be. Which means that the primary difference is not so much about what the game does but individual play style. We'll always have a pretty big gap between what options we can provide to people and how many options people want so that they can play the game exactly the way they want to. There are only so many hours in the day to design and codes stuff.

That being said, CMx2 will have many improvements as we go along that will appeal to people like Other Means. 30 meter tall soldiers? Never, but other stuff for sure.

Steve

Many, many debates

And as you know the core of my argument is that yes, all the information is there, it's just not easily accessible.

I'm looking forward to whatever solution is being stewed.

[Battlefront.com]

Lurker765,

I did not selectively quote any reviews.

Sure you did. For example, why not put the full quote of the GameZone.com quote instead of just the part you liked:

Combat Mission is not the best looking tactical simulator out there with it’s rather odd looking characters but the grandeur of the environments are really something to behold.* Just moving the mouse across the field reveals the environment be it a massive field or towns.* The characters don’t look quite right with their misshapen head (but they do have great facial features) and awkwardly hilarious movements (when they run, you’ll swear you’re watching an episode of South Park).

Having a serious simulation compared to South Park isn't good in my eyes.

I also tried to read up on the lower ranked articles in that link you provided, but the websites are no longer function so I can't see what they are saying. However, that score of 70, for example, was in all probability either slamming the gameplay or slamming the graphics, or in general was lukewarm to both.

Not that it matters. You can believe whatever you want, but I know what the facts are. Charles in I almost did not make CMAK simply because we didn't think we could get away with using the same graphics engine again. And why would we think that? Because absolutely nobody was anything other than thrilled with the graphics in CMBB? Or is the more likely reason that we had real reasons to doubt we could get away with only minor changes and the reception of CMAK only reinforced that?

CMAK is probably a different story, but then again that is always the case when a computer game doesn't update graphics much as years go by. Of course CMSF would have been slammed if you had not updated the graphics just as if Quake was released again in this environment everyone would scorn it. For the times however, CMBB graphics were better than CMSF is and I think the reviews have reflected that.

OK, so what's your point? That we should have spent another year working on the graphics engine?

Instead I find and link several that are of the opposite opinion and at worst lukewarm.

You cherry picked your comments, so you found what you wanted to find. We, on the other hand, had to make a business decision back in 2003 about the allocation of resources and what we would do next. If you want to think we did that without careful thought or any good reason to do so... you're entitled to your opinion.

CMx1 struck a great balance between graphics and game play while it seems that the vast majority of development time on CM:SF went into graphics.

Not true. The majority of our time went into building a better overall environment. A lot of that required better graphics, but the graphics themselves didn't take up a "vast majority of development time". You have no basis for that conclusion, BTW, but you're entitled to an opinion no matter how wildly speculative, uninformed, and pointless as it might be.

could be turned around to ask -- if so much dev time had not been expended into trying to get close to good graphics how much could the gameplay, mechanics, feedback, etc been improved.

Not enough to keep us in business.

Would reviewers and gamers alike think of CM:SF if the graphics were not as emphasized but instead the other issues were in the game instead? How many people wanted a right click menu? Kill lists? Quick battles? WEGO TCP? All the things that were in CMx1 that made commanding fun (for me) seemed to have not made it into the initial release of CM:SF and I only see years of development for mainly graphic improvements (that I don't really even notice much at the levels I play at, especially if in RT with no replay available).

Well, I can't teach a blind man to read, so if that's all you think CMx2 has to offer then I suggest going someplace else for your gaming requirements because clearly we've got our heads up our arses.

There is a price for trying to keep up on the graphics front. You are apparently happy with that decision, and it is your call to make. Your question is not as lopsided as you made it appear though -- of course everyone would prefer Crysis style graphics (if their machines could run it). But the cost to get to that point means that gameplay topics get put on the back burner for years.

Of course it's not lopsided. Of course the current graphics environment is a compromise between what is possible and what is practical. I've been saying that for years. The problem you don't seem to understand is that your sense of balance does not give us a viable product. Since we're the ones who have jobs or not because of our decisions, our opinion carries more worth than yours.

I've argued for years that the reality is if we had listened to people like you in 1997-1999 CMBO would have been a top down 2D hex based game. Why? Because the same sorts of arguments were made back then. People like you slammed the whole concept of 3D because of its development cost, ridiculed our early screenshots (oh man were we slammed, so we had to redo a ton of graphics before release), and so forth because graphics supposedly weren't important. And that's why so many people complained and we had to up our game for CMBB. We PURPOSEFULLY did not up them for CMAK because it wasn't worth it to us, and for many reasons (including graphics) CMAK didn't sell as well as CMBB which sold less than CMBO.

I loved CMx1 for it's game play along with good enough graphics. Maybe your new batch of customers prefer the graphics and can tolerate the lesser game play better than I can -- in which case BFC is on the right path and I move off into the curmudgeonly past.

From what I can see you're already firmly in it so there's nothing for you to move off to

Honestly, I wish we could take everybody along with us from game to game. That would mean more sales for us, would it not? We didn't get much of the Steel Panthers and Close Combat fanatics to come over to CMx1 because of the design decisions we made. We knew, likewise, that we'd not bring all of the CMx1 players to CMx2. We did what we did because we knew that recovering old, "safe", gaming territory was neither commercially viable or personally interesting to us. We've been over that tired and beaten ground a million times in the past 3 years (i.e. long before the game was out).

Customers have the luxury of being able to stay in the past if they want to, we don't have that choice. You should feel fortunate you have a choice. We, on the other hand, had to change with the times or go out of business. And it doesn't matter one bit if you don't understand or believe that because you only have your next $45 on the line while we have our entire collective livelihood at stake.

And yes, sitting here now... we're VERY happy where we are today. The best part is that things are going to get better going forward from CM:SF instead of worse like they did after CMBO.

Steve

[Paper Tiger]

'There's nowt weirder than fowks.'

If I really didn't like this game for some reason, I'd definitely move on to something else and maybe return later to see if something has changed. That reviewer probably got paid to spend his time complaining about the game. If some of you guys have insurmountable problems with this game, why can't you go and play something else instead of 'haunting' these forums? Run to the light!

[Chelco]

That reviewer probably got paid to spend his time complaining about the game.

Hi PT,

That reviewer is IGN's Executive Editor for the PC reviewers team. Just in case people didn't know. Not trying to pick a fight or anything.

Cheers,

[Lurker765]

Lurker765,

Sure you did. For example, why not put the full quote of the GameZone.com quote instead of just the part you liked:

<snip review>

Having a serious simulation compared to South Park isn't good in my eyes.

I also tried to read up on the lower ranked articles in that link you provided, but the websites are no longer function so I can't see what they are saying. However, that score of 70, for example, was in all probability either slamming the gameplay or slamming the graphics, or in general was lukewarm to both.

Steve

Well...I guess I am in the position of defending a game to its creator who treats it as being awful. Since you couldn't find any reviews that were negative on your own I guess we can agree to talk about the one that 'slams' CMBB by comparing it to South Park. What were the graphics review by GameZone for that review? 7.5 out of 10. That doesn't seem too bad.

And like you said, the lowest score of 70 was on that page. That LOWEST critic score review for CMBB would be well above average for CM:SF reviews listed on Metacritic.

I put the links up to the reviews so that you can read all you want about the reviews. NONE of them were graphics 'score slaughtering'. If you can find one we could discuss it, but otherwise we are limited to the ones I provided I guess.

Since you couldn't find the link for the lowest ranking review of CMBB here it is:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021231060130/http://pc.totalgames.net/reviews/reviewsfull.epml?reviews.REF=2802&import.REF=1&format.REF=8&gameType.REF=3

It's main complaint is that CMBB is WEGO (instead of turn based) and not overhead based. I think we can both agree this reviewer was not on board with the revolution in war games that CMx1 became and instead preferred the classic board game style.

I did not cherry pick any comments. I provided the links for the reviews since I can't legally post entire articles. If you would like you can go through any reviews you want and find out where they slam the graphics of CMBB more than they praise it. Let's compare reviews and see what the true picture of the critics was for the release of CMBB. If we want to just do the graphic ratings we can rummage through the reviews and compare them and I bet I'll 'win'.

OK, so what's your point? That we should have spent another year working on the graphics engine?

No. My point is that slamming CMx1 in an attempt to make CM:SF look better is not truthful. I don't know why you persist in saying that CMx1 was hated by critics who hated the graphics and how bug infested it's releases were (also not true).

I've argued for years that the reality is if we had listened to people like you in 1997-1999 CMBO would have been a top down 2D hex based game.

Really? You have no basis for that conclusion, BTW, but you're entitled to an opinion no matter how wildly speculative, uninformed, and pointless as it might be.

How do you know what I was thinking in 1997-1999? How do you know what kind of games I play today?

I was one of the Steel Panther / Close Combat 2 fanatics that continued to play those games even as I played CMx1. I like good games that give you good tactical choices to make. I don't see why you think just because someone liked SP or CC2 they wouldn't like CMx1 either. Some people were no doubt displeased, but apparently the critics and fans that helped create a market for BFC games were not. I was among those people that bought every CMx1 game you put out as well as buying CM:SF on preorder.

Paper Tiger,

I think you are for the most part getting your wish. Most of the old timers aren't posting here anymore and I stop by whenever I check the CMx1 forums. I usually have five minute intervals available in my day and if I have the time I check the CMSF forums as well to see if there are any new patches out, what the future of fortifications FOW, etc will be. How many posts do I have in the last six months? Maybe eight posts including the ones in this thread? Does that amount seem excessive?

It is just when I poke my head in and see Steve rewriting the critical reviews that are still posted on the game websites it seems reasonable to note that. Honestly, I don't understand why CMx1 needs to be trampled upon to make CM:SF look better. CM:SF should stand on its own two feet well over a year over its release.

[Battlefront.com]

Lurker765,

Well...I guess I am in the position of defending a game to its creator who treats it as being awful.

This is the typical "strawman" that gets brought up every time I talk about CMx1 games in anything but blind rapture. The games were great, the best of their class at the time and as of yet unrivaled by anybody else except (and we can argue about this till the cows come home) CMx2. Heck, there's only been something like 2 attempts in 10 years to even compete with us, and neither have done well by comparison.

But that was then and this is now. The wargame companies that didn't advance their franchises are all out of business. Why would you want us to go out of business the same exact way?

I put the links up to the reviews so that you can read all you want about the reviews. NONE of them were graphics 'score slaughtering'. If you can find one we could discuss it, but otherwise we are limited to the ones I provided I guess.

Personally, I don't have time for this. I already stated the obvious... and that is when we decided to break with the CMx1 graphics it wasn't because everybody loved them. So unless you are advancing the notion that we are blithering idiots who spent a year making a graphical engine that was completely unnecessary, then you're going to have to admit that perhaps you missed something. Like the discussions on these forums.

Here's one link to a discussion in 2000 about us improving the graphics. I'm sure if I spent more than 2.3 minutes on this I could link to dozens of other threads. As it was I did skipped to the last page and read this from me:

11-01-2000

We have always said, and always will say, that Combat Mission will improve graphically as the hardware allows. Anybody that played the Beta Demo, then Gold Demo, and the latest version of the full thing should know darned well that we mean what we say.

CM will likely NEVER be cutting edge since we will most probably always have to make some compromises for time and hardware limitation concerns. But CM will certainly get better looking each time we make a release.

There you go... the strategy outlined years ago.

OK, I spent a couple more minutes looking in the 2002 archives. I found a really harsh review of CMBB by a Dutch website, but the original link is gone. However, one Dutch player said this about the review:

The review is utter crap. Basicilly he tries to explain what wargames are, proceeds to bitch about the graphics, tells that he doesn't know what he is supposed to do, gives the reader tactical advice (don't put infantry in the open because an enemy tank hidden in the bushes could fire upon them) and ends with briefly talking about the bonus cd (which he appaerntly didn't install, too difficult perhaps).

No doubt about it... we had a lot of guys on our Forums defending our graphics in these threads, but the fact remains the graphics were an issue. Even for CMBB, which I agree was graphically the best of the three.

Here's another one:

The score breakdown:

Graphics: 56%

Sound: 72%

Controls: 69%

Atmosphere: 11% (WTF??)

Game Design: 65%

Multiplayer: 79%

Yup, nobody was complaining about the graphics or giving us knocks for it. Either that or you are aren't seeing the same historical evidence that I'm finding within 10 minutes of looking. Plus, as I said we didn't make this up and then slave away at solving something imaginary.

No. My point is that slamming CMx1 in an attempt to make CM:SF look better is not truthful. I don't know why you persist in saying that CMx1 was hated by critics who hated the graphics and how bug infested it's releases were (also not true).

No, I persist in saying we saw the writing on the wall. CMx1's graphics were good enough for 2000, but even by 2002 it was clear they were on their last legs. This is something you refuse to understand, but that's not really relevant.

As for buggy... CM:SF was certainly more buggy, but we've tried to keep things in perspective. All our releases were buggy, and there are still people to this day that bring up bugs in CMx1 games that we never fixed.

How do you know what I was thinking in 1997-1999? How do you know what kind of games I play today?

I have no idea what you were thinking back then. What I said is that we had people using the same logic against CMx1 as you are now employing against CMx2. And that is, basically, telling us that we shouldn't do something different from what has already been done. We had SP, CC, and (to a much lesser extent) ASL/SL guys tearing us apart from the moment we started talking about CMBO through the entire life of the game. They hadn't even seen the Beta Demo and we were already getting told that we were going to fail. Were you around for the big flame wars between our Forum and the CC3 Forum? Classic reactionary thinking there. The SP guys were more mature, but the general consensus was that IGOYOUGO is superior to WeGo, hexes are necessary for wargames, etc.

I was one of the Steel Panther / Close Combat 2 fanatics that continued to play those games even as I played CMx1.

Our fan base didn't come out of thin air, so this of course doesn't surprise me. We had a lot of converts from the start and more switched over as time went on. Especially after the other games died or stagnated.

Some people were no doubt displeased, but apparently the critics and fans that helped create a market for BFC games were not. I was among those people that bought every CMx1 game you put out as well as buying CM:SF on preorder.

True, of course. And we definitely are appreciative of past support. But we made a product and you decided to buy it. We don't owe you anything more than that, and you certainly don't owe us anything more. If we are now making games you don't like, well... that's life. We made the right decisions for the right reasons and are being rewarded for it. Yup, despite CM:SF's problems the sales have continued to be strong and are now starting to exceed expectations. The Marines Module blew our sales estimate out of the water. And even if this wasn't the case, we aren't turning back the clock to 2002. That time was then and it will never be again.

I think you are for the most part getting your wish. Most of the old timers aren't posting here anymore and I stop by whenever I check the CMx1 forums.

Most of the Old Timers were never interested in the Syrian setting and so, understandably, aren't really anxious to spend all kinds of time talking about it. Quite understandable and very much expected.

It is just when I poke my head in and see Steve rewriting the critical reviews that are still posted on the game websites it seems reasonable to note that. Honestly, I don't understand why CMx1 needs to be trampled upon to make CM:SF look better. CM:SF should stand on its own two feet well over a year over its release.

It's funny. We criticize our politicians and corporate leaders for not having much introspection and learning how they can do things better. And how is that done? By pretending that everything that has been done up to that point is perfect? That's what I refuse to do even if some of you have almost religious issues with it. In fact, some of CC3 guys loved to call you CM Zombies and CM Zealots, so it really does come as no surprise that even we get attacked for having a critical eye towards CMx1 games.

I'll say for the millionth time... CMx1 kicked some serious butt and we have nothing but pride in what we achieved with it. But it wasn't perfect and we can't rest on dusty laurels. If we stop innovating and simply rely on the past we'll be out of business like Avalon Hill, SPI, Pacific 360, SSI, Talonsoft, etc. It's as simple as that.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Lurker765]

Steve,

I liked your last post much better. I agree with almost all of it.

I can't tell what the Dutch review blasted CMBB for since I don't read that language. My searches were limited to english speaking countries so my ten minutes of searching did not include foreign (to me) languages. Although I can't understand the ratings it gave for the english summary either (atmosphere 11%?, Multiplayer for a two person game seemed sweet to me even six years later -- what more could they want?).

That link you provided was funny. People arguing and trying to get you to push the envelope and write to a 64 MB video card! My laptop has 512 MB and it sucks nowadays.

I understand that graphics for the game were starting to get long in the tooth by CMAK. CMBB was great, CMAK not so much for the times. If you were planning on doing another game you had to update. That is how I quit doing computer game programming for my own small company -- I was the only programmer and if you wanted to have good presentation you needed more artists and programmers to compete with Everquest, etc (our main competition at the time).

Once you choose to compete with the graphics you have moved to the big pond. One developer has to spend most of his time coding graphics and can't afford to do even simple things like making delete save game screens. Fancy graphics take a lot of time to do correctly and bugs are obvious to the user. Simple things like labels for pinned units that only take a few hours of coding drop to the back burner once you commit to trying to compete on looks with the large programming staffs. That is why grogs tolerate sub optimum graphics since they understand that something has to give in the smaller companies.

It is good to hear you are happy with BFC sales. Small, local, home grown businesses are great. I like that in my neighborhood and I like that in the wild and woolly internet as well.

My real life job is to change with the times. I created multiplayer games designed for 300 baud modems connecting to BBS systems when I started. I recently wrote software for internet companies processing millions of web page hits for financial firms and now I write code for GPS systems using satellite technology that didn't exist when I started my career. I have no problems with change, and being called a CC2 nut by you followed by the next post calling me a CM zombie is strange. I would think I was one or the other based on your logic.

Just, please, stop slamming CMx1 to make CMSF look better. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of my posts are something similar to the ones in this thread. I don't post often until something pushes my buttons.

Here is an even more comprehensive review site for CMBB to add to the metacritic site I posted earlier:

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/522049.asp

21 of the biggest review sites. They LOVED CMBB. The few sites that didn't particularly like it are now out of business and even they liked it better than the average CMSF review score.

I'm not trying to tell you what to do in the future with your company. But it is tough stopping by and watching you flame the product that built your company despite written evidence to the contrary of the history you are spinning.

[panzermartin]

Personally I cant go back to CMx1 style gameplay, no matter how infected I was back then. Its higly desirable for me thought to bring back those things you mentioned missing in CMx2. Sound contacts, misIDs, QBs, etc. I would even suggest a kind of CMx1 flag system for those quick games you dont really want to bother reading briefings but just have a clear indication of score and victory conditions that make the game a "fight till death" and much more gripping in head to head with objectives changing hands etc. It would look more "gamey" but I dont see the damage in the prestige of the simulation aspect of the game if the current more sophisticated system is also retained for scenario building.

As a side note, generally making the rules of a game more complex dont necessarily make it better. Its simple rules+awesome gameplay that leads to success. Take for instance football. Two sides kicking a ball trying to put it past a line. Sounds dull in paper but in reality it is the most loved game in the planet. The more symmetrical and balanced WW2 with a return of a point system in QBs would make things much simpler for the average wargamer.